Sun Sets On Nile Colonial Treaties
Feb 18, 2004
ON May 6 2002, Amon Reeves Kabareebe, the MP for Rwampara county in Mbarara district, tabled before Parliament a motion requiring Uganda to declare itself not bound by all colonial treaties concerning the River Nile Basin.
By Cyprian Musoke
ON May 6 2002, Amon Reeves Kabareebe, the MP for Rwampara county in Mbarara district, tabled before Parliament a motion requiring Uganda to declare itself not bound by all colonial treaties concerning the River Nile Basin.
Britain, a former colonial master, initiated the agreements where Uganda and lower Riparian (river) state Egypt committed themselves to obligations.
According to the MP, the agreements should be considered repudiated by Uganda at Independence, or, if they were not repudiated, Uganda should now do so unilaterally because they are contrary to the principles of customary and international law.
Kabareebe argued that Egypt, the principal beneficiary of the agreements, had breached several of them.
Since the motion was tabled, a lot of water has passed under the bridge, providing fertile ground for dispute.
Soon after tabling the motion, the Minister of Water wrote to foreign affairs minister James Wapakhabulo and Attorney General Francis Ayume seeking advice on how he would respond to the proposal.
“Both of us responded advising a cautious approach and avoiding unilateral action, lest Uganda provokes international acrimony, which could frustrate the ongoing efforts by the Riparian states to create a new treaty regime under the proposed Nile River Cooperation Agreement,†Ayume later told the natural resources committee.
Treaties that bind Uganda:
The 1929 Nile waters agreement
It provided for the division of the Nile waters between Egypt and Sudan. The agreement was especially meant to allocate water to the Sudan for irrigation.
Under the agreement, Britain, on behalf of Uganda, undertook not to construct any irrigation or power works on the Nile, its tributaries and associated lakes.
Also, all other territories then under British administration could only proceed with any such constructions after the consent of Egypt, as such constructions would reduce or delay water destined for Egypt.
The Owen Falls Agreements of 1949 and 1953
The two agreements provided for the participation of Egypt in the construction of the Owen Falls Dam and the subsequent use of Lake Victoria as a reservoir of water for Egypt.
They also provided for the financial contribution of Egypt and the compensation Egypt would pay to East Africa due to damage caused by the rising level of Lake Victoria.
Ayume made an analysis, which drew extensively from a treatise by Makerere University don John Ntambirweki, titled “Colonial treaties and the legal regime of the Nile valley: Rethinking the legal framework into the 21st centuryâ€.
On February 12, 1963, the then Prime Minister of Uganda, in a letter addressed to the secretary general of the UN, declared Uganda’s position on the subject of treaties concluded by the British government and extended to the protectorate.
The Premier said Uganda would apply the terms of the treaties only from Independence Day to December 31, 1963.
He said at the expiry of the period, Uganda would regard the treaties as terminated.
The Premier’s letter was followed by a declaration of Parliament on treaty obligation that was contained in sessional paper number 3 of 1963.
It stated the right for independent Uganda to determine its attitude towards treaties extended by the colonial government.
“Mr. Ntambirweki and Hon. Muzoora suggest that the above statements in effect signified the repudiation of the aforesaid treaties.
“They argue that the effect of the statement was that with Uganda having pronounced itself, and Egypt having made no objection, the latter accepted that the pre-independence treaties on the Nile were no longer on the former,†says Ayume.
He says Egypt’s failure to compensate the East African states as per the 1953 agreement was a serious breach, which denies it the right to rely on that agreement.
“Because that compensation was essential to the accomplishment of the purpose of the Owen Falls Dam agreements, Egypt’s failure was a breach of a bilateral treaty as spelt out in article 60 (2) of the Vienna Convention on the law on treaties,†Ayume says.
The article provides that a material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.
Ayume contends that while Muzoora’s motion has a merit and very persuasive, the purported repudiation contained in the Prime Minister’s letter and the subsequent sessional paper of Parliament were not ‘unequivocal (particular)’ and none therefore amounted to a repudiation, considering Uganda’s subsequent conduct.
“To that extent, the agreements are binding on Uganda until they are repudiated in accordance with article 65 of the Vienna Convention. In the circumstances, Uganda is free to opt to terminate the agreements in accordance with the convention.â€
Article 65, in essence with the debate, says ‘the end of a (colonial) system demands the end of its relations (and obligations), especially if their continued existence is manifestly not in the interest of the new (independent) state(s).’
Taking note of initiatives now in place for reddress, like the Nile Basin Cooperative Framework, Ayume says the Government should ‘urgently take the matter with Egypt with the view of repudiating the 1929 and 1953 agreements and have a new treaties regime established’.
Ends
ON May 6 2002, Amon Reeves Kabareebe, the MP for Rwampara county in Mbarara district, tabled before Parliament a motion requiring Uganda to declare itself not bound by all colonial treaties concerning the River Nile Basin.
Britain, a former colonial master, initiated the agreements where Uganda and lower Riparian (river) state Egypt committed themselves to obligations.
According to the MP, the agreements should be considered repudiated by Uganda at Independence, or, if they were not repudiated, Uganda should now do so unilaterally because they are contrary to the principles of customary and international law.
Kabareebe argued that Egypt, the principal beneficiary of the agreements, had breached several of them.
Since the motion was tabled, a lot of water has passed under the bridge, providing fertile ground for dispute.
Soon after tabling the motion, the Minister of Water wrote to foreign affairs minister James Wapakhabulo and Attorney General Francis Ayume seeking advice on how he would respond to the proposal.
“Both of us responded advising a cautious approach and avoiding unilateral action, lest Uganda provokes international acrimony, which could frustrate the ongoing efforts by the Riparian states to create a new treaty regime under the proposed Nile River Cooperation Agreement,†Ayume later told the natural resources committee.
Treaties that bind Uganda:
The 1929 Nile waters agreement
It provided for the division of the Nile waters between Egypt and Sudan. The agreement was especially meant to allocate water to the Sudan for irrigation.
Under the agreement, Britain, on behalf of Uganda, undertook not to construct any irrigation or power works on the Nile, its tributaries and associated lakes.
Also, all other territories then under British administration could only proceed with any such constructions after the consent of Egypt, as such constructions would reduce or delay water destined for Egypt.
The Owen Falls Agreements of 1949 and 1953
The two agreements provided for the participation of Egypt in the construction of the Owen Falls Dam and the subsequent use of Lake Victoria as a reservoir of water for Egypt.
They also provided for the financial contribution of Egypt and the compensation Egypt would pay to East Africa due to damage caused by the rising level of Lake Victoria.
Ayume made an analysis, which drew extensively from a treatise by Makerere University don John Ntambirweki, titled “Colonial treaties and the legal regime of the Nile valley: Rethinking the legal framework into the 21st centuryâ€.
On February 12, 1963, the then Prime Minister of Uganda, in a letter addressed to the secretary general of the UN, declared Uganda’s position on the subject of treaties concluded by the British government and extended to the protectorate.
The Premier said Uganda would apply the terms of the treaties only from Independence Day to December 31, 1963.
He said at the expiry of the period, Uganda would regard the treaties as terminated.
The Premier’s letter was followed by a declaration of Parliament on treaty obligation that was contained in sessional paper number 3 of 1963.
It stated the right for independent Uganda to determine its attitude towards treaties extended by the colonial government.
“Mr. Ntambirweki and Hon. Muzoora suggest that the above statements in effect signified the repudiation of the aforesaid treaties.
“They argue that the effect of the statement was that with Uganda having pronounced itself, and Egypt having made no objection, the latter accepted that the pre-independence treaties on the Nile were no longer on the former,†says Ayume.
He says Egypt’s failure to compensate the East African states as per the 1953 agreement was a serious breach, which denies it the right to rely on that agreement.
“Because that compensation was essential to the accomplishment of the purpose of the Owen Falls Dam agreements, Egypt’s failure was a breach of a bilateral treaty as spelt out in article 60 (2) of the Vienna Convention on the law on treaties,†Ayume says.
The article provides that a material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.
Ayume contends that while Muzoora’s motion has a merit and very persuasive, the purported repudiation contained in the Prime Minister’s letter and the subsequent sessional paper of Parliament were not ‘unequivocal (particular)’ and none therefore amounted to a repudiation, considering Uganda’s subsequent conduct.
“To that extent, the agreements are binding on Uganda until they are repudiated in accordance with article 65 of the Vienna Convention. In the circumstances, Uganda is free to opt to terminate the agreements in accordance with the convention.â€
Article 65, in essence with the debate, says ‘the end of a (colonial) system demands the end of its relations (and obligations), especially if their continued existence is manifestly not in the interest of the new (independent) state(s).’
Taking note of initiatives now in place for reddress, like the Nile Basin Cooperative Framework, Ayume says the Government should ‘urgently take the matter with Egypt with the view of repudiating the 1929 and 1953 agreements and have a new treaties regime established’.
Ends